As of 2016, one american = 4,600 pounds of carbon annually.Population of the land of the Free(ly cooking themselves in their breath):323,130,000.

4,600 x 323.13 million pounds of satellite-computerizedfrigidly air-conditioned shiny black SUVsfueled by the blood of the earthof white plastic microwavesand trampling tractorsexploiting the CO2 absorbing ground for food (30-40% of which will fester methane in a landfill)

The surface area of our great(er than mentalitizedthe > now a symbol of greed)nation = 2,300,000,000 acres- 375 million acres of infertile Alaskan land =1.85 billion acres of potential forest

-108 acres of developed land (which right there shows there is plenty of room left in this country)brings the figuredown to about 1.75 billion viable acres,only 67% of the approximately 2.6 billion required

of that 67%,only 753.5 million is currently forested753,500,000/2,600,000,000 =just under a mere 28% of the acreage needed to cleanse the atmosphere.

1850 CE.the approximate year America surpassed the 1,959,100,000 tons of carbon dioxideour nation's forestry is capable of supporting,the year we should have ceased to smother our noble arboreous oppositeswith overpoweringly oily breath.

Note: avery.sigrid, who was an amazing mentor to me, introducing me to YWP and teaching me so much about poetry, once challenged me to write a mathematical poem about climate change. I was too intimidated then, but I think I'm closer to ready now, so here's my attempt at it.

I got stuck in some areas, and would greatly appreciate any feedback or suggestions. Also, if you notice any mathematical errors, please let me know, as I haven't gotten a chance to check all of my numbers, which are approximate, if you could tell by the 5 or so times I used that word :)

Discussion

Comments

ShanRippWriting

Jul 24, 2018

This was such a smart poem I'm in awe. I'm not really a fan of math but reading this didn't make it seem like I was looking at that much math at all. You took two almost completely contrasting subjects and meshed them together in a clear way. Great job, Shannon :)

Hazel.C.

Jul 24, 2018

Thank you! I'm glad to hear that the numbers and poetry blended well together, and that the piece doesn't read as overwhelmingly mathematical, I was a bit worried on both of those points.

I still feel like some areas are pretty rough, and need more imagery or better consistency of ideas. I've come up with a couple ways to fix particular problems, but if you have time to give any feedback/constructive criticism, even as to the general areas that could be smoothed out/ added to, it would be very helpful and appreciated. Thanks again for your kind words,
~Hazel

~Hazel

ShanRippWriting

Jul 25, 2018

I added comments in the text where there could be a liiiittle more clarity. Hope this helps, Shannon :)

Hazel.C.

Jul 25, 2018

Thank you so much for the notes, they were really helpful!

To your first annotation: I was using "derived" in it's alternate definition of "to originate from". However, I agree that this isn't the best word to use, as even that definition is usually used in a different context. I chose this word because I wanted to use one related to math to further integrate the poetic environmental component and the calculations, and chose this one as a play off a derivative. I'll try to find another mathematical term that makes more sense.

As to your other suggestions, I completely agree and work on clarifying them soon! Thanks again,
~Hazel

~Hazel

sophie.d

Aug 01, 2018

Hazel, this is awesome! I LOVE the line "(ly cooking themselves in their breath)". It's very effective how the first 5 stanzas build on each other numerically. They effectively illustrate the crescendo that is climate change. Occasionally, I found myself lost in numbers, as they are in fact so large, and therefore hard to keep track of. You could consider changing some of the long, fully written out numbers to "millions". This would increase consistency and make the numbers easier to visualize and track for the reader. However, I do enjoy how the numbers read out loud without the "point". Props to you for tackling a difficult concept so beautifully!

Hazel.C.

Aug 02, 2018

Thank you! Researching and calculating the statistics for this was both very interesting, and time consuming, so I'm glad to hear that the "building upon" technique was effective. My hope was to make the huge issue of climate change clearer, by breaking down the problem, than building it back up.

As to the larger numbers: I chose to either write them out or simplify them pretty intentionally, to create a certain level of variance, and at one point, to hold suspense. In the fourth and fifth stanzas, it was actually my intention to have the reader get lost in the "totals" numbers, and then "translate" them to emphasize how outlandishly large they are, which may be more evident in the audio recording, where I tried to emulate the way our brains simultaneously ponder over and skim the numbers.

All that being said, if you would like to list or highlight the particular numbers you got lost in (outside of the intentional ones I mentioned), I will definitely consider simplifying them. Thank you so much for your feed back, I really appreciate it!
~Hazel